Bob Woodward

Like a lot of young journalists in the 70's, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were heroes to me because of their work meticulously piecing together the Watergate crimes. So it was particularly disheartening in the first half of this decade to see Woodward take on the role of commentator/courtier for the Bush administration in his two mostly glowing books describing preparations for the Iraq invasion.
Improbably, he became a confidant, calmly reporting all the grandiose claims and little white lies that built The Grand Mistake. What in the world happened to him?
Well, it looks like one of two things. Either he was duped by those people and now wants to salvage his reputation; or he slyly used the first two volumes of his Bush At War trilogy in order to gain their confidence so that he could write the third: State of Denial.
As a book, it reads like an endless newspaper article--and I mean that in a good way. There is a shocking void of judgement in his account. Instead, he uses quotes and anecdotes from all of the principals involved to simply let them savage themselves. The roles become pretty clear: Powell is the scorned 'appeaser' for suggesting anything other than full scale warfare; Tenet is well meaning but sometimes bumbling, allowing himself to fall on the sword of both misused and misguided intelligence; Rumsfeld is petty, domineering and in the end incompetent; Rice is unflatteringly described by almost everyone, including one who calls her "clearly the worst National Security Advisor in modern times". And of course, Bush himself, who apparently has long since ceased talking to Woodward directly, is the parenthetical pseudonym for the title of this final volume.
For those like me who have long wondered how this administration could get so many things dead wrong, Woodward paints what seems to be the most plausible explanation. Bush believes in his heart that if he shows any wavering, any doubt whatsoever, everyone underneath him will 'go wobbly' on him. Thus, he never expresses doubt, never admits a mistake, and takes whatever steps necessary to remain a positive force field at all times. (And we all saw how well that leadership style worked for the followers of Jim Jones). In response, his staff feels reluctance and even fear to bring him anything to upset his vision of victory and perfection.
The consequence, of course, is denial. A refusal to consider reality. One misguided decision piled on top of all the previous ones. In the end, resolute does not trump wrong.
If you want to know what it's been like on the inside, I don't know that anyone will offer a better analysis any time soon.

diderot